The buoy data was bumped upwards in the 40s/50s? I've never seen any evidence of this. I know the ship data depicted significant warming in the early/mid 20th century, and was subsequently homogenized to the buoy data in large part until the 1970s.
Wait what, when did I say there was buoy data in the 1940-1950s? I was clearly referring to this earlier statement from you... Again, re-iterating myself here, this statement is wrong, the ERSSTv4 data was actually adjusted upwards in the 1940s, at the peak of the last warming period. While the upward adjustment didn't last nearly as long as the downward adjustment in the 1920s and 1930s, the amplitude was 2x as high as the preceding era's decrease, therefore it roughly offsets the change to ERSSTv4 vs ERSStv3b in the 1920s & 30s.
"The bouy data was adjusted to boost synchronicity with the ship intake data after the late 1980s, and yet this ship data was adjusted downwards significantly from 1920 to 1945, which "coincidently" happens to coincide with the previous global warming period."
Somehow I misread your first post and thought you were referring to buoy data that existed before the late 1970s (which I was unable to locate).
That said, this still doesn't make any sense to me, because the buoy fraction spiked from ~ 10% in the mid 1980s to ~ 50% by the early 2000's, yet those temperatures were adjusted downwards, while almost the entirety the recent upward adjustments (due to the growing buoy proportions) occur after 2003. So, what could have been so cold-biased as to require an adjustment large enough to outweigh the upward adjustments for the increase in the buoy proportion during that time? And, why is this out of phase with the ERI/Hull data adjustments in the early/mid 20th century?
As a result of this, the ERSSTv4 trend from 1998-present is literally twice as large as the OISSTv2 and HADSST3 datasets. More than anything, this looks like an attempt to linearize the post-1950 temperature trend.
Any actual, publishable proof of this or are we just making things up yet again to fit our own preconceived notions? What about those published papers which tackle and dismantle the ERSSTv4 adjustments?... yeah I don't see any of those either... I'm also still waiting on all this "proof" of GISS temperature adjustments. If you feel their adjustments are unsubstantiated, you should consider publishing on it, you have enough credentials, knowledge, & apparently more than enough time to rant about it here, so why not?
John Bates happens to an award-winning NOAA scientist, as does Roy Spencer. When the Karl et al paper was published, dozens of well respected scientists took issue with the methodology employed, including at least two here at my university.
I don't know if you converse with climate scientists as frequently as I do, but if so, then I'm sure you've observed the growing suspicion through which these homogenization processes are analyzed through by the scientific community. Try not to isolate yourself in a bubble of like-minded thinkers.
I also find it funny how the new RSS data actually shows a little more warming than GISS in the satellite era, yet relative silence from anti-AGW crowd.
No it doesn't. It depicts almost twice as much warming, with the biggest divergence over the oceans (shocked..not).
In fact, GISS is an extreme warm outlier even relative to NCDC & HADCRUT4:
Also note the recent GISS update featured an adjustment twice as large as its previously published margin of error. How can anyone with a working brain believe these claims of "superior accuracy" when every d**n adjustment is larger than the published margin of error? Absurd.
The fact that these sources of microwave emission have been around for an extended period of time doesn't change the fact that these are significant sources of natural interference wrt microwave radiance emissions which will provide even more uncertainty (than there already is) w/ satellite data. Voltage is measured on the satellite, and from voltage microwave emissions from oxygen (radiance) can be somewhat inferred throughout large depths of the atmosphere, however, microwaves are also emitted from the land and ocean surfaces (including vegetation), clouds, and this also is somewhat dependent on elevation, therefore they actually do contaminate the O^2 microwave emissions. And of course from radiance temperature may be interpreted.
They're more than just "somewhat" inferred. It's actually a fairly straightforward process, utilizing the most basic pre-einsteinian equations, most having been known since the inception of classical mechanics. The challenges are almost all anthropogenic in nature (orbital drift, sensor degradation, etc).
Also, natural influences like vegetation and orographics aren't contaminants because they actually alter the global temperature trend. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This isn't like UHI which actually contaminates the data because it's extrapolated thousands of miles between stations.